The ‘Conservatives’ Complicit With Obama

Doug Mills-The New York Times

When Republicans and Democrats unite to prop up a corrupt regime like the Obama administration, it is relevant to ask what purpose, what shared goal unites them. Furthermore, when two such diametrically opposed camps repeatedly, and with almost pathological zeal, advance causes that damage their own political standing and even jeopardize their possibility of re-election, it must be asked what has been promised to these groups of individuals.

Why is so little being done by conservatives in office to counter the damage President Obama is doing to our country? Why does Obama feel he can abuse his office with impunity? Answer: Clearly because those who would oppose him have been placated.

What have they been promised?

It would require much more space than is available here to detail the number and substance of offenses committed against the American people and their Constitution by this president and his allies. So for a start, consider just some of the damage Obama has done to the U.S. in these three categories: the rule of law, civil liberties and American national security.

Rule of law

President Obama is fast becoming the equivalent of an elected dictator, and Republicans are stopping short of the necessary action, placing temporary political considerations above the safety of the United States. Several months ago, President Obama announced that he would begin to spend the American people’s money without the legislative authorization of Congress, an unprecedented step. This announcement came on the heels of Obama intimating that he may use the 14th Amendment to pass a budget without Congress, an egregious abuse of his power. As Obama brazenly declared, “I’ve told my administration to keep looking every single day for actions we can take without Congress, steps that can save consumers money, make government more efficient and responsive, and help heal the economy. And we’re going to be announcing these executive actions on a regular basis.”

Action indeed must be taken, action dedicated to stopping dead in its tracks the creeping disregard of constitutional limits on power, limits that keep Americans free and preserve democratic accountability. If Obama, one of the most unpopular U.S. presidents in history, is able to impose his legally questionable and popularly loathed policies on the American people without the constitutional filtering mechanism of Congress, can it be said that elections have any real purpose or meaning? President Obama’s”actions” are illegal and circumvent the system that guarantees American liberty.

Furthermore, the president is given no authority under Article II of the U.S. Constitution to create laws – only the power to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The chief executive holds the power to sign or to veto, and there ends his capacity for legislative input.

Many iron-fisted regimes were built on the premise that absolute power was needed to advance the “common good.” Obama’s illegal recess appointments and his refusal to heed the rulings of federal judges all smack of a dangerous mindset. Obama’s ilk defended these moves, citing a need for “efficiency.” History repeats.

Speaker of the House John Boehner’s response to these “actions” is to recommend the president take a different approach. Do we really think Obama cares about GOP recommendations? Restoration of the rule of law demands swift action, or restoration may never occur. Resistance to Obama’s power abuses, as evidenced by the tepid wrist-slap from the Boehner camp, is weak and completely inadequate to the task of stopping rogue government. Moreover, Obama’s innumerable and unconstitutional czar appointments, which undermine democratic and accountable government, have been condemned but not defunded.

What have they been promised?

Civil liberties

In the three years since Obama was elected, he has done more to attack civil liberties than the last two presidents combined. Through various czar appointments, Obama has openly attacked free speech. President Obama began by creating his own Ministry of Truth, headed up by Cass Sunstein, a man whothinks that free speech is not in the “interest of citizenship….” Sunstein would admittedly like authority to ban what he deems “falsehoods,” all of which suspiciously tend in the conservative direction.

Mark Lloyd, the new FCC diversity czar, went as far as contending that conservative journalists shouldstep down in favor of liberal counterparts, identifying Hugo Chávez as a suitable model for desired “social change” in media. Lloyd advocated taxing private – and mostly conservative – broadcasters out of existence.

After pursuing regulatory control of speech, Obama sought legislation giving him the authority to shut down certain websites and even the Internet altogether, all under the guise of protecting “national security.” Then there is SOPA. Although publicly opposing SOPA, Obama’s past actions would seem a reason to be skeptical of his present stances, e.g. monitoring social networking sites, encouraging Americans to report on fellow citizens, etc.

But who needs to merely limit speech when brutal intimidation is even more effective? President Obama is the first U.S. president to claim the authority to assassinate American citizens without due process, a power that was broadened by the NDAA to include the detention of American citizens indefinitely without charge or trial. Add to this action the instigation of DHS dossiers on journalists (traditional and online). Now that the president can declare anyone a “terrorist” (even his political opponents), who will dare to speak out?

Despite significant public opposition to these moves, the GOP and most Democrats did little to stand in the way of these unconstitutional power seizures. Criminal and illegal actions gravely

detrimental to liberty in America were met with tough rhetoric, but no concrete action was taken to halt these moves. The question must be asked, what have they been promised?

American security

At the same time Obama is expanding his police-state powers and building the architecture of tyranny, he is removing the U.S. military from the chessboard, reducing its size and severely constraining its ability to defend the American people from domestic or foreign attack. Obama admittedly seeks the eradication of American superpower status. Why else would he willfully share top-secret information on U.S. missile technology, thereby enabling America’s enemies to identify strategic weaknesses and calibrate their plan of attack accordingly? What purpose could such transfers of information have other than to critically weaken and expose the United States?

Sharing top-secret information that could result in American deaths is criminal behavior. These are the actions of a man drunk with power. Where are the calls for impeachment, the calls for the legal recourse appropriate in such situations of “high crimes and misdemeanors”? Is Congress dead to the difference between coincidence and malicious intent? Again, the question seems appropriate, what have they been promised?

As former Secretary of Defense James Forrestal once rightly noted, “These men are not incompetent or stupid. If they were merely stupid, they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.”

America is in danger, not just from outside attack, but from willful self-destruction of the kind described by President Lincoln in his Lyceum address. By doing nothing in the face of such blatant and transparent subversion, of the rule of law, of liberty and of American security, good men commit the grave error of allowing evil to triumph.

What have they been promised?

John Griffing originally posted on World Net Daily



1 Comment

One Response

  1. TStewart says:

    John, I have often wondered the same thing. A couple points have become fixed in my mind. It is not what is promised, it is the “precedence” that is valued. It has been done over the past several presidencies. Each President has gone beyond the preceeding one in the number and effect of “Presidental Directives”. Even the proposed “line item veto” will be supported by the current Republican leadership in the thought that the next Rep. president can use it. Only the Senate may block it, proving to be the greater delibrative body. The second thought is that a move, at this time, to impeach Obama would result in civil unrest and rally more support for a second term. However if he does get the second term and Republicans take the Senate and retain the House, I would not be surprised to see such an event. He certainly, along with others in his administration, has given rise to actions that could call for it.

Leave a Reply

Using Gravatars in the comments - get your own and be recognized!

XHTML: These are some of the tags you can use: <a href=""> <b> <blockquote> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>